Controlling of Personal Information - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1536 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Information Systems Essay Type Analytical essay Tags: Information Essay Did you like this example? Controlling of personal information: An in-depth Analysis Summary of Assigned Article Lisa M. Austin in her article, Control Yourself, or at least your core self-defines privacy as a control mechanism over oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s personal information.[1] The author provided legal framework for the protection of oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s privacy. Such legal frameworks include: Federal personal Information protection and privacy act as well as Canadian internet policy and public interest clinic. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Controlling of Personal Information" essay for you Create order Furthermore, Austin differentiates between the first and second generation philosophers of technology through the idea of the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“selfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . According to first generation, technology is linked with culture and modernity and it is through these notion that the advancement in technology is so vast that it simultaneously can threaten an individualà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s freedom.[2] However, second generation philosopherà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s critique the first philosophers view on technology, critiquing the usage and development of technology[3] explaining that technology does not control human.[4]Moreover, second generation philosophers open up questions to legal scholars about the consequences of technology stating that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“technology is not neutral rather it has a social and political valueà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[5] Austin discusses the impact on the issues of control to the concept of the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“selfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[6] The author goes further on to di scuss how there are issues pertaining to ones control of privacy and the idea of the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“core-selfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[7] The disclosure of personal information by an organization requires the individual to consent without limiting the disclosure of information that is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“sensitive and intimateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[8] She further conceptualizes the concept of the self in relation to ones à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“biographical core of informationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  that is personal information revealing à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“intimate details of an individualà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s life styleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [9] to the control of oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s personal information. She argues that the solution and the problem of control should be embedded in providing more control on how information and technologies interact. Austin explains the extent of protecting ones à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“self-presentationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  that is choosing to whom one wants to present themselves to.[10] She discusses the e xample of a personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s photograph in a magazine, shifting from an audience that has access to the photograph to a much larger audience that reads the magazine. This causes, as Austin states a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“prima facie privacy claimà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [11] undermining ones capacity to protect à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“self-presentationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [12] posting a question for legal scholars of the concept of the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“selfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  to advances in technology.[13] Part II: Comparative Analysis Article 1: Langdon Winner, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Do artifacts have politicsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Winner as well as Austin speak about the implications of technological advancements on society. Winner argues that technology is arranged in a way that has political, social and economic ends.[14] Similarly, Austin argues that technology has a detrimental effect on an individualà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s freedom where legal scholars need to re-evaluate how technologies are designed and implem ented.[15] This rests on the assumption that, states should recognize the public and structural aspects of privacy in political and social context, having some form of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“controlà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . Take for example, the use of cell phones or the developments of new technological surveillance. This makes an individual lose control over their personal information as individuals value privacy and protection of how much their personal information is known by others controlling the capacity of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“self-presentationsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  of individuals[16] as Austin articulates, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Information and communication as placed the limits on personal information beyond ones controlà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[17] Furthermore, Winner and Austin are in agreement that, technology is a common ground for neutrality[18] violating ones à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“normal expectationsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  [19]and constituting a threat to human freedom.[20] For example, Winner described the example of R obert Mosses, the urban planning of New York City where he build bridges and roads for the purposes of discouraging the presence buses and transportation, an idea similar to Caroà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s social class.[21] In todayà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s digital era, technology provides information on a massive level of domain where hackers can get access to oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s personal information through the use of Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn as well as personal emails. Take for example, the love bug virus that was incorporated through the use of email, getting into userà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s personal emails, tracking down passwords which resulted in billions of loses. As Austin states, there are privacy challenges associated with the way information and communication technologies interact[22] where à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“technologies can be used well, poorly, good, and for evil purposes.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [23] From this perspective, one can articulate the notion that with technological advancements, t here is a strategic control in the sense that technologies can authorize power over others.[24] Both Winner and Austin, explains the impact of social life, the advancements of technology has on economic costs as well as benefits and risks associated to public safety. Moreover, Winner and Austin speculates the notion of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“controlà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  in different ways. For instance, Winnerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s ascribes control to be embedded in political aspects for the removal of inequalities. On the other hand, Austin speculates control of information where individuals have the capacity to control the information that they want to share with others.[25] So, if technological advancements can undermine oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s personal and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“biological core informationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  with having little control on protection, then is it safe to say that there could be some form of control in relation to copyright laws? Article 2: Jessica Litman, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…†œThe demonization of piracyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Recent advances in technology has undermined a personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s ability to control some form of personal information. According to Litman, the idea of control is based on copyright laws where authors have some form of control over what they disseminate, distribute and disclose information to the public[26] giving the exclusive authority ship of oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s work[27] for the compensation of monetary value.[28] Similarly, Austin proposes the idea that individuals have some form of control over the disclosure of information as outlined under the Personal information protection electronics documents act.[29] Moreover, Austin proposes that in order to solve the detoriation of control over privacy, there has to be more control[30] and to protect the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“exclusive rightsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  of authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s writings they need to have control over the content.[31] In light of such issues, both Litman and Aus tin speculate over the notion that there has to be some form of control over the disclosure of information and the information that is pertained under copyright laws which can be undermined by a lack of control. Furthermore, Litman states that, in order for there to be some form of control over the work and to protect the rights of the authors, the public has to use some form of authorization in order to access the content.[32] This will prevent any harms to an authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s rights or the limit the authors have posted on the accessibility of the content, making sure that personal information is not undermined. Technology does not drive human beings rather human beings drive technology, where they have means of controlling the type of information they want the public to know. However, under copyright laws, there comes a breach over the control of information on the use-age of materials. Litman describes this notion as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“piracyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  that is the d ownloading of materials by illegal means[33] Take for example, the downloading of music.[34] This not only violates aspect of copyright laws but also the fact that companies are losing control of digital privacy undermining the freedom of individuals as Austin articulates, out of control technology relies on a new age of freedom[35] making indviduals lose control over information.[36] Furthermore, Litman proposes a case à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The digital Millenniumà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  copyright, where the owner restricts the access to copying and prohibits the distribution of information by giving the control back to the owners[37] where they determine when, how and to what extent they want to share the information with others.[38] One can contemplate the notion that, copyright laws are providing a powerful incentive for controlling oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s work which could pose an effect on individualà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s freedom. Thus, copyright laws are providing a set of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“exclusi ve rightsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  to authors to restrict their content to the public. In essence, both authors Litman and Austin, ascribe the notion of control over the perception on the concept of the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“selfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  representation which can be diminished when illegal work is distributed. References: Lisa M. Austin, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Control yourself or at least your core selfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (2010) 30 Bulletin of Science and technology 1. Langdon Winner, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Do Artifacts have politics?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (1980) 109 Modern technology: Problem or opportunity 1. Jessica Litman, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Demonization of Piracyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (2000). Tenth Conference on computers, freedom privacy [1] Lisa M. Austin, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Control yourself or at least your core selfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (2010) 30 Bulletin of Science and technology 1, at pg. 26 [2] Ibid at pg. 27 [3] Ibid at 2 [4] Ibid at 3 [5] Ibid at 4 [6] Ibid at 5 [7] Ibid at 6 [8] Ibid at pg. 28 [9] Ibid at 9 [10] Ibid at 10 [11] Ibid at 11 at pg. 29 [12] Ibid at pg. 28 [13] Ibid at 12 [14] Langdon Winner, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Do Artifacts have politics?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (1980) 109 Modern technology: Problem or opportunity 1, at pg. 122 [15] Supra note 1 at pg. 27 [16] Supra note 1 at pg. 29 [17] Ibid 16 at pg. 26 [18] Supra note 14 at pg. 125 [19] Ibid 16 at pg. 124 [20] Supra note 1 at pg. 27 [21] Supra note 17 at pg. 124 [22] Ibid 18 [23] Supra note 14 at pg. 125 [24] Ibid at 20 [25] Supra note 1 at pg. 29 [26] Jessica Litman, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Demonization of Piracyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (2000). Tenth Conference on computers, freedom privacy at pg. 1 [27] Ibid at pg. 2 [28] Ibid at pg. 3 [29] Lisa M. Austin, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Control yourself or at least your core selfà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (2010) 30 Bulletin of Science and technology 1 26-29 at pg. 26 [30] Ibid 26 pg. 28 [31] Supra note 23 at pg. 6 [32] Ibid [33] Ibid 28 at pg. 7 [34] Supra note 23 at pg. 7 [35] Supra note 26 at pg. 26 [36] Ibid at 30 [37] Supra note 23 at pg. 9 [38] Supra note 26 at pg. 28